Omaha Forums

mcarch wrote:Waste of space. If we want density we need to stop allowing suburban buildings from being built.

Who's "we" and by what right do we "allow" them to do anything?

ILexpat wrote:

mcarch wrote:Waste of space. If we want density we need to stop allowing suburban buildings from being built.

By what measure? I guess we could let the plot sit and wait for that 100 story Creighton dorm. Come on now.

What are they even talking about...

iamjacobm wrote:

ILexpat wrote:

mcarch wrote:Waste of space. If we want density we need to stop allowing suburban buildings from being built.

By what measure? I guess we could let the plot sit and wait for that 100 story Creighton dorm. Come on now.

What are they even talking about...

So on the site, I have spoken about using land for better use. An example: out in the suburbs there are apartments being built on high ground where single family houses could have taken better use of the views (city views)... all in the name of density... as so I was told.

Then when I state areas downtown shouldn't have 2 story buildings taking up so much space, I get told that we shouldn't care about density?

So if its in downtown we don't care if we have suburban buildings, as long as the suburbs produce density?

That piece of land is huge. They could have taken the 2 story building and put it on top of itself (4 floors, not 100) and saved 1/2 the land for another building. But instead they'll place the 2 story building, then later somewhere else (possibly more land in north downtown as Creighton always "seems" to run out of room) they'll place another 2 story building, taking over land that could be "better" used for something else.

We need to stop taking "what we get" to fill in a vacant lot. A great example was Hilton... the other proposal by Marriott should have been chosen. We would have had larger conventions then instead of waiting until we were told "well we would have come if you had more hotel space." So instead of 1 building, we have had tons more hotels that needed to be built. Yes, I agree that its good they filled space, but what could that space they filled been better suited?

Always ask yourself, if we take this, what in the future might we get that's better? The statement shouldn't be, well that vacant lot needs to be filled so I guess we'll take what we can get. We usually regret it later.

And "we" meaning the city as a whole.

mcarch wrote:

iamjacobm wrote:

ILexpat wrote:

mcarch wrote:Waste of space. If we want density we need to stop allowing suburban buildings from being built.

By what measure? I guess we could let the plot sit and wait for that 100 story Creighton dorm. Come on now.

What are they even talking about...

So on the site, I have spoken about using land for better use. An example: out in the suburbs there are apartments being built on high ground where single family houses could have taken better use of the views (city views)... all in the name of density... as so I was told.

Then when I state areas downtown shouldn't have 2 story buildings taking up so much space, I get told that we shouldn't care about density?

So if its in downtown we don't care if we have suburban buildings, as long as the suburbs produce density?

That piece of land is huge. They could have taken the 2 story building and put it on top of itself (4 floors, not 100) and saved 1/2 the land for another building. But instead they'll place the 2 story building, then later somewhere else (possibly more land in north downtown as Creighton always "seems" to run out of room) they'll place another 2 story building, taking over land that could be "better" used for something else.

We need to stop taking "what we get" to fill in a vacant lot. A great example was Hilton... the other proposal by Marriott should have been chosen. We would have had larger conventions then instead of waiting until we were told "well we would have come if you had more hotel space." So instead of 1 building, we have had tons more hotels that needed to be built. Yes, I agree that its good they filled space, but what could that space they filled been better suited?

Always ask yourself, if we take this, what in the future might we get that's better? The statement shouldn't be, well that vacant lot needs to be filled so I guess we'll take what we can get. We usually regret it later.

And "we" meaning the city as a whole.

But it's Creighton's land, they own it fair and square. They have an idea of what they want to do with it within their vision for their campus. Why should they be obligated to build something that they don't want or need?

For the purposes of this clinic, there really didn't need to be a high rise here. What would they even have done with it?

Office, classrooms, labs something so they don't keep wasting space.

MTO wrote:Office, classrooms, labs something so they don't keep wasting space.

There is a reason you don't see hospitals and clinics from mixing office space in the same building as the clinical spaces. It's impractical. Too many people on top of each other, too much space being used not dedicated to patient care, and the presence of people who don't necessarily need to be there. Methodist, Children's, and every CHI hospital all have their office space separate from the main hospital.

A lab, maybe, (but a lot of lab work is either going to be sent to a central location serving all of CHI, or to an outside company), but anything else would be problematic. Any healthcare building should only be built for healthcare purposes and nothing extra.

The only thing I think I would have changed is adding underground or sub-level parking, like Children's.

I know I'm just empathizing with mcarch.

Should we split off the "CHI Downtown Medical Center" or whatever its being called these days since it seems like its going to be independent of Creighton?

Sunday Photo Update:

1.


2.

Thank you for posting the pictures! The view of the skyline is awesome! Perhaps in the future this will be prime space for residential developments with salespeople selling a great view of downtown Omaha.

It may not need to be a highrise, but they're definitely squandering space as well as walkability for future development on the block by not building up to the street like they should in an urban neighborhood. In general it creates an anomaly within the urban fabric.

Brad wrote:Should we split off the "CHI Downtown Medical Center" or whatever its being called these days since it seems like its going to be independent of Creighton?

I believe this is going under the moniker "Creighton University Medical Center University Campus."

iamjacobm wrote:I believe this is going under the moniker "Creighton University Medical Center University Campus."

Last thing I saw was "CHI Academic Medical Center - University Campus" with no mention of Creighton.

Brad wrote:

iamjacobm wrote:I believe this is going under the moniker "Creighton University Medical Center University Campus."

Last thing I saw was "CHI Academic Medical Center - University Campus" with no mention of Creighton.

This is where I saw it.

http://www.chihealth.com/creighton-univ ... ity-campus

Here is a another picture of the new scoreboard for the soccer field. I think this is a step back if you ask me, but now there are more stats displayed.

skinzfan23 wrote:Here is a another picture of the new scoreboard for the soccer field. I think this is a step back if you ask me, but now there are more stats displayed.

Not really, remember the old big screen? It worked for a few seasons then just went out. In those few seasons some panels of it wouldn't turn on either.

Saturday Morning 10/17/2015 Photo Update:

1.

And a couple Aerial Photos from yesterday too.

1


2.

Brad wrote:And a couple Aerial Photos from yesterday too.

1


2.

Is that a sir charge on the north end or just a dirt pile?

MTO wrote:Is that a sir charge on the north end or just a dirt pile?

No Sir... LOL....

That is not a surcharge. Looks like a topsoil stockpile that is usually spread out after major construction is complete before sod.

That's a large plot of land for such a small building.

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:That's a large plot of land for such a small building.

I believe its barely big enough with all the parking required for both the ER and the Clinic.

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:That's a large plot of land for such a small building.

And only a two floor building, we can only hope they plan on filling in some of that lot down the road.

MTO wrote:

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:That's a large plot of land for such a small building.

And only a two floor building, we can only hope they plan on filling in some of that lot down the road.

Hopefully that will be the case someday. I think it looks ridiculous driving down Cuming and seeing the building set back so far. Maybe it will look better when the landscaping is installed but for that area it doesn't look good.

Updating championship center:

skinzfan23 wrote:Updating championship center:

It stretches around the sides too. Check out this cover photo from Matt, the main writer that covers Creighton for the White and Blue Review.

https://twitter.com/mjdemarinis

I like the "17,000 Strong" on the right side.

Creighton is fundraising for their new dental school and it looks like they're hopefully nearing what they need because today in their monthly newsletter they linked a video with renderings. Looks like it will be along the north side of Cuming st. around 20th(?) st. Here's a link to the newsletter along with some of the renderings from the video: http://www.alumni.creighton.edu/s/1250/ ... &pgid=1111

They are doing a great job of constructing some really ugly buildings.

Wow, that looks nice. Wouldn't that be the South side of Cuming st? This might be the tallest building we get downtown for awhile. Lol. In all seriousness, i really do like the design.

Tornado wrote:Wow, that looks nice. Wouldn't that be the South side of Cuming st? This might be the tallest building we get downtown for awhile. Lol. In all seriousness, i really do like the design.

Oops, you're right, I meant south side of Cuming.

I'm excited about this. It's MUCH nicer than what they have now.

I think the building looks nice...so more infill and taking out a vacant lot.

The dental clinic is 21st and Cuming. The university also owns the block north of Cuming from 19th-21st.

I'm curious what the move for the Boyne Building is? Demolish both Boyne and Bio Information Center and put something new in? Bio Information is used for several of their health programs. Sell it off and develop the land into something else - that's a pretty big piece of land. They also own the parking low to the west of the Roberts/Hiland Dairy facility. Just my opinion, but they made a great move nabbing up all those Modern Equipment buildings in 08. They probably got a heck of a deal too.

In non actual updates, but dreamland, I'd love to see them move the ROTC building off Cuming Street, get rid of the on-campus baseball field, build a nicer softball "stadium," and infill on the south side of the mall leading to the soccer stadium (across from the championship center), and infill across from Campion house (and put something in that building, which are kind of cool row houses from a while back).

To the people who want "high rises" from an urban college - trust me, students don't want those (and forgive me for pointing out that Creighton's focus is getting students to go there - not pleasing forum readers). The campus needs green/open space - and, I for one, believe Creighton has done a great job with campus development - the only buildings that look odd are the bunker-like library and the oddly paired McGloin and FPA building. One of the biggest complaints is waiting for elevators - you get rid of the mass need for elevators (read: students using them, not bypassing ADA) when you put in 2-4 story buildings. The Hixson-Lied Building is five floors (if I recall right) and I'd say that is the high-end for non-residential housing. Even with the new dorms (Opus/Davis), those are 4 floors.